“According to the information technology office of the Indian state of Karnataka (where the city of Bangalore is located, and where I am currently visiting), Indian units of Cisco, Intel, IBM, Texas Instruments and GE have already filed more than a thousand patent applications with the U.S. Patent Office. Texas Instruments alone had 225 patents awarded to its Indian operation.”

~From “The World is Flat” by Thomas Friedman

Facts about charitable donations in 2006:

1. The number of individual donations of $100 million or more hit a record in 2006.

2. In 2006, there were 21 donations of $100 million or more by individuals to universities, hospitals and charities, compared to 11 in 2005.

3. The philanthropy of the country’s 60 most generous givers hit a record $7 billion in 2006, up from $4.3 billion the year before.

Read more here in USA Today.

The average U.S. household consumes 10,600 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy per year. In 2006, Al Gore devoured 221,000 kWh — more than 20 times the U.S. average. In other words, Gore consumes more energy in a single year than the average household uses in two decades! Or Gore uses more in 4 years than the average American uses in their entire lifetime!

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,600 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, Gore paid $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville home in 2006.

Read more here from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

1. Lots of fur coats.
2. Lots of smokers, they are everywhere, this is a smoker’s paradise.
3. Lots of olives, they are everywhere, and they are far higher quality than what we get in the U.S.
4. Free olives at almost every bar, and free tapas at every bar – olives, potato chips, spanish omelette (tortilla), small sandwiches, nut mixes, etc., included in the price of drinks.
5. Lots of facial piercings.
6. Not very many Internet cafes, I haven’t seen one!
7. Very efficient subway system, and cheap (1 euro).
8. Accordions everywhere, on the subways, in the subway stations, all around downtown.
9. Excellent beer, wine and cheese, and of course olives.
10. Lots of books and lots of reading, more than the U.S. I think. Homes and apartments have lots more books than in the U.S., and there are lots of people reading books on the subway. In the U.S., it seems more common that people are reading newspapers on subways and trains.

George Mason economist Don Bodreaux makes a good point that Americans are beneficiaries of an overvalued dollar vs. the yen or yuan, so why should we complain about bargain prices for Chinese and Japanese goods?

There’s an even deeper reason why Americans should not tolerate Uncle Sam accusing foreign governments (like China and Japan) of undervaluing their currencies. Such undervaluing — if, indeed, it occurs — benefits Americans.

Keeping in mind that it is difficult to determine whether or not a government truly is keeping the value of its currency too low relative to the dollar, let’s assume (for argument’s sake) that the Chinese government really is doing so.

How does it achieve this outcome? Answer: The Chinese government must buy up dollars and keep them out of circulation. By reducing the supply of dollars on foreign-exchange markets, the value of the dollar rises relative to other currencies, including that of the Chinese yuan.

In other words, the value of the yuan falls against the dollar.

Now ask: How does the Chinese government buy these dollars? It can do so only by taxing its citizens, either directly (such as by raising their income taxes) or indirectly through inflation — simply printing new yuan — or deficit financing. Each of these policies transfers money from the pockets of Chinese citizens to the coffers of the Chinese government. This government then uses these yuan to buy up dollars.

The ultimate result is that the Chinese government forces Chinese citizens to subsidize the consumption of Americans and other peoples who import goods from China. The Chinese people either pay higher taxes or suffer inflation so that Chinese exporters can sell goods to foreigners at artificially low prices.

Why should Americans complain? The real victims of such currency manipulation are the Chinese people. Americans are beneficiaries.

Labor unions, like the government, can change prices — in this case, the price of labor — but without changing the underlying reality that prices convey. Neither unions nor minimum wage laws change the productivity of workers. All they can do is forbid the employer from paying less than what the government or the unions want the employer to pay.

When that is more than the labor in question produces, some workers who are perfectly capable become “unemployable” only because of wages set above the level of their productivity. In the short run — which is what matters to politicians and to union leaders, who both get elected in the short run — workers who are already on the payroll may get a windfall gain before the market adjusts.

But, sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. They have been coming home to roost big time in the automobile industry, where hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost over the years. It is not that people don’t want automobiles. Toyota is selling plenty of cars made in its American factories with non-union labor.

From economist Thomas Sowell´s recent column Priceless Politics III.

MP: Like stepping on the bathroom scale, the ruthless forces of the market alway eventually expose economic flab and inefficiency. And although you can maybe avoid stepping on the scale in the short run, you cannot avoid the scale in the long run.

The market forces of supply and demand, along with a strong dose of globalization, finally forced the UAW to step on the scale, and guess what? Union wages and compensation are way too high, and union productivity is way too low, according to the scale. And like the bathroom scale, the market doesn´t lie, it always provides accurate and truthful information, as painful as it might be.

Bottom Line: The UAW is probably the most successful union in U.S. history, at achieving both higher-than-market wages and below-market productivity for its members, at least in the short run. But that very union success created the seeds of a powerful destruction that we are witnessing today, and in the long run that very union success is destroying thousands and thousands, and maybe millions of union jobs, and is destroying many of the very companies that employs its members (GM, Ford and Chrysler). As Sowell points out, the chickens have come home to roost, or the UAW finally had to step on the scale.

Economists have long been saying that there is no free lunch but politicians get elected by promising free lunches. Controlling prices creates the illusion of free lunches. ¨

Thomas Sowell, in his recent column Priceless Politics II.

See a list of his speeches and fees here, minimum Clinton fee is $100,000, maximum is $400,000 and average is probably about $150,000 to $175,000.

His income in 2005 was about $8 million from speeches. And you thought CEOs were overpaid!

A basic problem with the often quoted personal saving rate is that it mixes together current workers with retirees who should be expected to spend much more than they earn. One academic economist has calculated that excluding retirees from the figures would add about 4 percentage points to the saving rate. Moreover, this error should grow over time as the US ages and healthcare costs (a major purchase for retirees) continue to grow.

Another problem with the saving rate is that when consumers buy durables – think cars, furniture and appliances – the spending is counted right away even though payments will be made over time. Amortizing these purchases would push up the saving rate another 2 percentage points.

From economists Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein at First Trust Portfolios.